tv [untitled] July 2, 2013 3:00pm-3:31pm PDT
with the compliance report to the city, but there is third-party review of that report. there will be a 30-day public comment on that report. this happens annually. there will be a city report on compliance to address lists of specified issues. there will be annual hearings on compliance of both planning and health commissions. on top of that, there will be a third-party monitor in case there are issues around compliance and then ultimate responsibility for initiating any necessary enforcement actions will continue to rest both with the director of planning, the director of health, and the board of supervisors. we will also continue to have the power to direct our city attorney to initiate any enforcement actions, which is the case for all aspects including the local hiring provisions i know supervisor breed is concerned about. the last comment i just want to make is i want to join supervisor wiener and frankly i think the comments that and the perspectives that many of us have had around issues around mental health. i think many of us were interested in seeing if there could be more done
specifically, but we understand from our department of public health their pleb speculative on these matters and their assurances that they have future plans to treat patients who are too sick for our patient care to deal with mental health needs of our prison realignment program and really to address what would be a potential reduction in acute and subacute beds. so, we will of course continue to monitor this and i want to thank director garcia for her answers to our questions here. with that, colleagues, any final comments? as i said before, we first need to vote on the general plan. so, madam clerk, why don't we take a roll call vote on items 27 through 29. >> on items 27 through 29, supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen?
cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> these ordinances are passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> and on the balance of the items related to cpmc items 30 through 39, madam clerk, colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection, these ordinances are passed on the first read and resolutions adopted. [gavel] >> thank you very much. at this time why don't we go to our 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk, could you call items 40 and 41? >> items 40 through 41 is the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole pursuant to a file approved june 18th, 2013, for a public hearing to consider objections to a report of assessment costs for ip specs and/or repairs of lighted properties submitted by the director of public works for inspection and/or repairs
ordered to be performed pursuant to administrative code section 80. >> colleagues, per usual, we have a presentation from dpw on the report of the assessment costs. and if there are members of the public that wish to speak on this item, you'll each have two minutes after dpw presents to make your case to the city. so, to dpw. >> thank you. my name is robert kwan. i'm with the department of public works, and this report is for properties inspected [speaker not understood] and repairs made on invoice by the city under the accelerated sidewalk abatement program from april, 2012 through april 2013. ~ during that period, the department inspected and/or caused to repair sidewalks and
curbs fronting public and private properties throughout the city in response to delinquent notifications issued in response to service requests seedthv by the drape received by the city attorney's office, mayor's office of disability, [speaker not understood], issuing 73 notices of violation and abatement orders ~ and 111 asap x 11 04s at a cost of $8 68,014.97. for light notice of violation and abatement orders, $693,88 6 .80 for asapx 11 04s for a total of $76 2,701.77. 82 invoices were sent out to property owners of which 43
invoices were paid along with the city to recover $9,0 82.[speaker not understood]. the balance [speaker not understood] sidewalk repairs or inspection costs placed on their property tax or otherwise have not paid the city in a timely manner. in this report we are submitting 39 properties with outstanding invoices totaling $59,73 2.68 to be placed as an assessment on the property tax rolls. >> thank you. unless there are any questions to dpw, why don't i now ask if there are members of the public that have issues with this report or if you have any comment to this report, you are welcome to provide your public comment. and after you do, we'll ask you to have a conversation with our dpw staff to see if this matter can be resolved before we end this hearing. and somewhere down the broken sidewalk road
♪ our roads are going to cross again and somewhere down the broken road i know you're gonna find these funds again ♪ and you'll fix the sidewalks and you'll fix them i know you're gonna mend ♪ >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is [speaker not understood] and i'm owner of gain cesar chavez at 28 31. ~ starting may 2011 until today, which over two years and three weeks, construction to improve cesar chavez entrap our
business and almost very close to put us out of business. we contacted contractor. we came here to city. we hired attorney. how we can be compensate for this entraption? and they using our property for the equipment ~. and they recently received invoice, i have to pay for the sidewalk report. it's two years, i lost almost 30% of my business. [speaker not understood], tv, newspaper, everybody said, don't go to cesar chavez because of trap. this is reducing our business, and another one is construction. sometime absolutely they close us. now they come to us and say you have to pay $6600 to repave the
sidewalk, which they -- many times they use it to find a pipe or do cutting the concrete. i want to know how we can be compensated for all this interruption. it's two years and it's still going. we have objection to pay for the -- >> thank you very much. thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to speak in general public comment on this item? please step up. line up on the right-hand side. good afternoon. my property is 1380 newcomb and what happened, they tore up the
sidewalk. they took all the overhead line down and put underground lines. you can't hear? >> we can hear you. so, they went underground. they're in the process -- i didn't have the funds to take care of those -- i don't know what you call them, but they were things that -- those pipes were supposed to go on the house and i didn't have the money to take care of it. so, they put -- they connected -- they made some holes in the ground, in the sidewalk and they put a poll up on my house, had the wires connected to my house. ~ pole so, black tar --
they had black tared it for a while. ~ i came down to city hall because i had a letter. told them what i had to say about that. i told them -- they told me about pg&e, so, i kept calling everybody. and, so, when they mentioned pg&e, i called pg&e when i got the letter who to call, and they never got back to me. so, it had to be [speaker not understood] because somebody had fell on my property. and i don't know who that person is to this day. so, they cement it, then i got a letter saying that i should come to this -- >> thank you very much. again, you'll have an opportunity to zvictiontion with the d ~ speak with the dpw staffer after this set public comments. next speaker. good afternoon, i'm
representing my mother's house at 285 saint charles avenue, san francisco. we got a notice of the repairs to the sidewalk that resulted in charge of $269. first of all, we were not aware of any defects of the sidewalk that was the homeowner's responsibility. according to this letter, it indicates that chapter 80 of the administrative code, which is not available to homeowners that i'm aware of, indicates that we are in violation of some sidewalk repairs. the only kind of sidewalk defects we have around the house are those crab grass that grows from under, underneath the sidewalk and is spreading the sidewalk all around the house. i'm not sure that that's our responsibility. and if it is, i have put in a call for mr. robert kwan from public works and have not
gotten a call back as of yet. but i cannot see how the city would dispatch enough people from the city employee, work in fixing the sidewalk to only cost $269. i don't know if that was an inch or a centimeter, but i would like to speak to someone about unfair charges because i don't think we should be obligate today pay that. thank you very much. ~ obligated to >> next speaker. hi, i have the property at 1750 la salle avenue. the city came out and tagged some squares for me to fix. i fixed the squares. i called the inspector. they came back out. well, he said he was coming back out. then i get another notice stating that they're not fixed. come to find out it was one of the squares that needed to put a tree in there. called the urban league. they said i cannot put a tree in there. so, they said to cement that.
i cemented everything i had. they fined me. i have proof the stuff has been fixed. permit fees have been -- permits have been filed with the office, but i'm still getting notices for having to come down here and i don't understand why. if everything has been fixed and i do have proof from the cement company that fixed my stuff. can somebody answer on why i keep getting notices, why am i getting fines for something i already completed? >> you'll have an opportunity to speak to the dpw staffer right after your comments. is this dp the clerk of the city? >> any other members of the public wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none i'm going to ask our dpw staffer if you could please escort members of the public that came to speak on this out into the foyer. and when you are finished with your conversation, if you could please let us know so you can report back and we will proceed to our next 3:00 p.m. special order. thank you.
madam clerk, could you call our 3 p.m. special order items related to mission bay and mission bay south? >> items 42 and 43 are board of supervisors sitting as a e of the whole motion approved june 18, 2013 for public hearing to consider an ordinance approving a resolution ~ -- excuse me, a resolution amending the mission bay south redevelopment plan which modifies the land use designation for certain properties to add residential as a permitted use and increase the permitted residential density in the plan area. does not increase the allocation of tax increment under pre-sifting enforceable objectly san diego baytion and making requisite finding. >> this is a redevelopment plan [speaker not understood] in supervisor kim's district. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i do want to thank the board for having this hearing today as we sit as a commissioner william lee of the whole. sirens we first a doddthv the mission bay plan in 1998 and after years of community advocacy, it's exciting to findly watch this neighborhood take shape.
there's been an existing community in the mission bay for many years and they will soon be joined by thousands of more residential units as they come align 30% of which must be affordable for our families and our seniors. we're also lucky to already have such an engaged residency entering your neighborhood south beach rincon hill and mission bay. they have been great advocates for balanced development. but in short, that neighborhood infrastructure matches our city's robust housing development in this part of town. ~ ensure as many of you know, the plan included over 8,000 units of housing -- i'm sawyer, over 6,000 units of housing. ~ sorry 4.4 million scare feet of office, biotech and research space which includes [speaker not understood] and hospitals and neighborhood serving retail as well as the public safety building which will host our fire department and our police department southern station. library, and 49 acres of public park. this plan also included a hotel
for 500 units. this is the first time our board will be hearing any amendments to the redevelopment plan since our redevelopment agency was dissolved last year. so, it's interesting kind of to go through this same process. but as we near completion, there are changes that still need to be made to the plan that we put together over 15 engineers years ago. this new change being proposed ~ will allow the developer to have the option to develop a mixed use development which includes residential units as well as a hotel unit. after a study was done it was determined that a 500 unit hotel development may not be appropriate for the site, but reducing it in half up to 250 units along with 350 residential units would be something that would serve this neighborhood better. the mission bay citizens advisory community has endorsed this change conveying that a smaller hotel and additional residential units is in keeping
with a need for housing while the smaller scale hotel serve visitors to the biotech businesses and ucsf campus while l also pro serving hotel jobs providing living wage for families. a little more on the residential units. 50% of all the rental units will be affordable on-site and for the homeownership units that will be created, there will be a 20% off-site and that will be given. this is our first hearing as i mentioned on our redevelopment plan amendment, the dissolution. and i just want to thank the staff of the successor agency and the members of the citizens advisory committee for reviewing these plan changes and developing a process which brings these types of amendments to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you. i didn't realize it's been that long, 1998, my goodness. just a couple things i want to
discuss about this plan. one, it is the parcel that was put aside for or possibly a public [inaudible]. i know as the school board member, we had discussed and we brought it up -- in fact, when i first got in as school board member, the school district didn't even know about the parcel. what we realized was that the footprint of that particular parcel was going to be very small. i don't know where thing are in terms of -- whether things are finalized totally or whether -- so, the question for me would be whether or not the possibility of expanding the footprint so that you can build a school there rather than squeeze everything into a closet basically for a school.
i'm not too sure how to answer these questions, but the other concern i have is around child care, and i'm not real clear any more where that is at, whether or not there is any parcel put aside for child care. i don't know how many of the total 6,000 units will be for family. you're just talking about the affordable housing units, that would be almost nearly 2000 units of affordable housing in which you mention that it's going to be good for families and seniors [speaker not understood] 1,000 units or families. and, so, this should be at least 1,000 through 1500 kids and which if you divide it up by age, you can have several hundred preschoolers there from 0 to 5. again, they have the impact in our very limited child care slots in san francisco, and i
really want us to take that in consideration that, you know, we don't want to have those families -- which, again, with our city's philosophy of transit first, to have to have child care for a 1 year old or two-year old, 2 or 3 miles across town somewhere where it's going to impact those areas where it's very limited in terms of child care slots. so, i really want to get some sense of where we're going with that because we're going to run into a lot of problems. and i mentioned this more recently when i realized that many of these waterfront development a they're talking about thing, they talk about housing. they're talking about retail. they're talking about a lot of other thing. what they don't talk about is
actually providing child caron site and we're going to have so much development down there. i don't know where they think the 0 to five-year olds are going to be. >> supervisor wiener. thank you, mr. president. ~ >> thank you, mr. president. i support this project, very good project, but i will raise the issue that i -- actually raised a few times recently, and we discussed in committee, and that is specifically not just relating to mission bay, but to all the development going along the waterfront area south of market street. we are not doing what we need to do in terms of investing and transit and making sure we have enough transit capacity to meet the needs of these new neighborhoods we're creating of all the new population and he economic activity that we are going to see ~ in this area of the city.
i have the same concern with, frankly, with all the development in upper market street. it's good development, but we're not doing what we need to do to build transit capacity. and one thing that we discussed in committee, which we then got an answer to afterwards, is that for this particular project, i believe there are approximately $21 million in impact fees. and of that 21 million, none of that is for transit impact fees. so, we need to get, i just think, more serious in terms of supporting the mta and its ability to really dramatically beef up transit service capacity in a lot of the parts of the city, but especially in the areas where we're adding significant new population. we don't have enough light rail vehicle capacity even to meet our current needs. and we're going to be putting so much more population along
market street, along the tmen lines, and we're going to, we're going to have a real problem unless we, unless we really expand that capacity. i don't see us doing it right now. all that said, this is a very good project and i support it. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to appreciate both of those points that were brought up, and also to supervisor yee's question. it's certainly a question wet get a lot from our neighborhood, which is what is the development or the timeline for the school. ~ it is a small site and i remember from my time on the board of education it what determined it could probably only fit a pre-k through 5 because of the footprint. the community had k through 8 or high school, but it looks like that wouldn't fit onto the site. we do have kathleen riley and tiffany here from successor agency to answer questions both on the school and the child care issue. we talk a lot about transit and affordable housing fees, but actually the fee that we never
talk about is child care and tax fees. it is the lowest one we often have on a development that is certainly an incredible need in our city. i appreciate supervisor yee bringing up that issue. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. actually, i just wanted to, through the chair, ask a question to supervisor wiener. in the presentation, the findings and benefits, $21 million of one-time development revenue and impact fee, i was curious to know given what you said about fees for mta, do you have a proposal or have you given it some thought, do you have any suggestions? i'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on that. >> supervisor wiener. >> no, i'm not going to try to -- this is an agreement that's been or development proposal that's been long in the works. i'm not -- i would have gotten involved much sooner had i wanted to make those kinds of changes. but i think that as know, as th
us and they do and we approve them, and we approve them and the planning commission approves them and we approve some, and while that's all happening we need to recommit ourselves to investing in transit and to significantly expend in capacity. it's not about changing this agreement. it's really about actually having that big picture in mind because, you know, once we do this, if we don't have that kind of expansion, everyone all across the city is going to really struggle to even have a train to get on. and, so, we need to fix that. >> supervisor kim. >> i want to bring up kathrin riley from the successor agency to address some of the feedback and questions from the board. >> i know there are a couple folk that represent this project. if there are any other comments that you would like to make, this would be the time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm kathrin riley from the office of community investment
[speaker not understood]. the project manager for mission bay. specifically in response to the question about child care and the school site, for child care in mission bay, we've been proactive, recognizing it is an important issue for the community. the first affordable housing project, the [speaker not understood] which is a family affordable housing project, first one we did in mission bay. it includes a head start child care program on-site. affordable housing is under construction currently, 150 units again of affordable housing for families. it's going to be targeting the older age group, so, teens would be on-site teen activity room. there is also two units which are being set aside for in-house child care. ucsf also has a child care center on-site and then also we've been working actively -- one of the big issues with child care and making sure we have adequate outside space. and, so, we've been -- as the new larger projects come in, for example, block 40 has a map
actually, if we can do the overhead. block 40, here's block 40 is down south. you have the ballpark to the north, first street, 16th street. so, block 40 is one of the newest -- it's the newest office projects that we just approved the design for as part of the project we set aside for child care and design incorporate the outside space. also a the larger future project comes through, we're actively working with them to identify locations with the needed outside affordable -- outside space to incorporate the affordable -- those child care. this project in mission bay is also subject to the city's child care [speaker not understood] and portion of that 21 million is going toward -- for the specific projects block 1 would go for child care as
well as $172,000 estimated for child care. >> do you know -- can i ask a question? >> yes. actually, supervisor breed is on the roster, but i'll acknowledge you afterwards. supervisor yee. >> thank you, supervisor breed. in regards to the total number of slots that we're talking about, do you know what they are? >> i'm sorry, i don't know at this point. why not. >> it would be good to know because i'm glad that there's consideration for opening up some of the child care centers. it's going to be a big difference whether it's for 18 or 36, you know. the capacity will determine how many people will be either working or living there.
>> i'm sorry, was that a question to -- >> i asked the question, did she know how many slots we're talking about. she said no. i think you understand that -- >> yeah, i don't know the exact number. going forward we're hoping to increase t. what i can say is we're committed to pushing the developers for these large -- mainly the office because those are the ones that have the most opportunity for the outside space, to incorporate this in their designs going forward. because if you don't design for it up front, it's very hard to retro include those in. they have been exploring the old navy. [speaker not understood], the old navy building which has one of the first buildings down there that had work -- rfp on the street to try to do child caron site because they do have some outside space. we're trying to work with the property owners down there to try and identify that outside space necessarily. so, we're not giving up with working with those existing
builders, but we definitely know going forward new design is a lot easier to think ahead and incorporate it in. >> thank you. i appreciate your effort. is it possible to get a list of potential sites just so i can share that with that child care community? >> definitely. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i had a few questions. i mean, i had an opportunity to serve on the san francisco redevelopment agency commission. and i remember at that time when we were discussing mission bay and the actual property that was slated for the school board at that time, i recall the commissioners making it clear that we had an expectation that there would be immediate dialogue with the school district and it was my understanding that that was already taking place, and that was several years ago. so, can you give us a clear understanding of what that conversation is and where y